Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Message-ID: <9505850ae4c203f6b8f056265eddbffaae501806.camel@trillion01.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] io_uring: Add to traces the req pointer when available
From:   Olivier Langlois <olivier@trillion01.com>
To:     Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>,
        Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@gmail.com>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, io-uring@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Date:   Wed, 26 May 2021 12:18:37 -0400
In-Reply-To: <9a8abcc9-8f7a-8350-cf34-f86e4ac13f5c@samba.org>
References: <60ac946e.1c69fb81.5efc2.65deSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
         <439a2ab8-765d-9a77-5dfd-dde2bd6884c4@gmail.com>
         <9a8abcc9-8f7a-8350-cf34-f86e4ac13f5c@samba.org>
Organization: Trillion01 Inc
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.40.1 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 2021-05-26 at 14:38 +0200, Stefan Metzmacher wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> > > @@ -333,13 +333,14 @@ TRACE_EVENT(io_uring_complete,
> > > ? */
> > > ?TRACE_EVENT(io_uring_submit_sqe,
> > > ?
> > > -???????TP_PROTO(void *ctx, u8 opcode, u64 user_data, bool
> > > force_nonblock,
> > > -??????????????? bool sq_thread),
> > > +???????TP_PROTO(void *ctx, void *req, u8 opcode, u64 user_data,
> > > +??????????????? bool force_nonblock, bool sq_thread),
> > > ?
> > > -???????TP_ARGS(ctx, opcode, user_data, force_nonblock,
> > > sq_thread),
> > > +???????TP_ARGS(ctx, req, opcode, user_data, force_nonblock,
> > > sq_thread),
> > > ?
> > > ????????TP_STRUCT__entry (
> > > ????????????????__field(? void *,???????ctx?????????????)
> > > +???????????????__field(? void *,???????req?????????????)
> > > ????????????????__field(? u8,???????????opcode??????????)
> > > ????????????????__field(? u64,??????????user_data???????)
> > > ????????????????__field(? bool,?????????force_nonblock??)
> > > @@ -348,26 +349,42 @@ TRACE_EVENT(io_uring_submit_sqe,
> > > ?
> > > ????????TP_fast_assign(
> > > ????????????????__entry->ctx????????????= ctx;
> > > +???????????????__entry->req????????????= req;
> > > ????????????????__entry->opcode?????????= opcode;
> > > ????????????????__entry->user_data??????= user_data;
> > > ????????????????__entry->force_nonblock?= force_nonblock;
> > > ????????????????__entry->sq_thread??????= sq_thread;
> > > ????????),
> > > ?
> > > -???????TP_printk("ring %p, op %d, data 0x%llx, non block %d,
> > > sq_thread %d",
> > > -???????????????????????? __entry->ctx, __entry->opcode,
> > > -???????????????????????? (unsigned long long) __entry-
> > > >user_data,
> > > -???????????????????????? __entry->force_nonblock, __entry-
> > > >sq_thread)
> > > +???????TP_printk("ring %p, req %p, op %d, data 0x%llx, non block
> > > %d, "
> > > +???????????????? "sq_thread %d",? __entry->ctx, __entry->req,
> > > +???????????????? __entry->opcode, (unsigned long long)__entry-
> > > >user_data,
> > > +???????????????? __entry->force_nonblock, __entry->sq_thread)
> > > ?);
> 
> If that gets changed, could be also include the personality id and
> flags here,
> and maybe also translated the opcode and flags to human readable
> strings?
> 
If Jens and Pavel agrees that they would like to see this info in the
traces, I have no objection adding it.

Still waiting input from Steven Rostedt which I believe is the trace
system maintainer concerning the hash-ptr situation.

I did receive an auto-respond from him saying that he was in vacation
until May 28th...

Greetings,